Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner firm is a manufacturer of grey cloth and the Industrial unit is situate in Plot No.21 and 22 allotted by SIDCO and the petitioner's firm is a small scale industry. The Government of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.809 Industries (SIE-2) Dept., dated 02.12.1987 and in Lr.No.5883/SIC/2/92-2, dated 19.02.1992 to encourage setting up of more industries in backward areas and announced power tariff concession for three years for the electricity consumed by the industries. As the petitioner firm is having a manufacturing unit in the backward area, this concession of power tariff was also available to the petitioner and as per the concession, the petitioner is entitled to 40% in the 1st year and 30% in the 2nd year and 20% in the 3rd year towards consumption of power.
3.According to the petitioner, the concession period starts from 19.03.1999 to 18.03.2002 and this subsidy amount will be disbursed twice a year for the bills from January to June, July to December. The petitioner firm is having two service connections, bearing S.C.Nos.98 and 99 and horse power of S.C.No.98 is 80 HP and S.C.No.99 is 62 H.P. and the total horse power is 142 HP. As per the norms of the Government, any Industrial Unit, which is having more than 150 HP is declared as High Tension Connection and as the petitioner is having less than 150 HP it has been declared as L.T. consumer and as such they are eligible for subsidy for three years. Based on the eligibility certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, the petitioner made application or reimbursement of the subsidy amount for the period from 19.03.1999 to 18.03.2002 as stated below:-
======================================================== S.C.No.98 S.C.No.99 Total ======================================================== Subsidy claimed from 6,50,268 4,09,844 10,60,112 19.03.1999 to 18.03.2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy disbursed from 15.03.2001 to 19.01.2005 6,43,205 30,400 6,73,605
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balance 7,063 3,79,444 3,86,507 ========================================================
4.Though a major portion of subsidy has been reimbursed and only Rs.7,063/- was not reimbursed. In so far as the reimbursement to S.C.No.99 is concerned, the respondents have not reimbursed Rs.3,79,444/-, out of Rs.4,09,844/- and when this was questioned by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Industries, by his reply, dated 08.09.2008 informed the petitioner that the Standing Committee for Industrial Promotion, has decided to issue subsidy for the first service connection only if there are more than one service connection in the same premises. Therefore, the 3rd respondent, by his proceedings, dated 20/10/2008 rejected the claim for subsidy for the S.C.No.99 and the 2nd respondent confirmed the same, by his proceedings, dated 01.12.2008. These proceedings are challenged in the writ petition.
5.Mr.R.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, has fairly conceded that the petitioner is also entitled to the subsidy for the service connection No.99 as the total horse power for the two service connections do not exceed 150 H.P. and as per the common judgment of this Honourable Division Bench made in W.A.No.1576 of 2004 and W.P.No.32776 of 2003, dated 31.01.2007, in the matter of Sree Jayasubha Spinners P Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, B.Jayalakshmi vs. 1. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009 and two others held that the circular of the 2nd respondent, dated 11.06.2002, by which the subsidy was made available only for first service connection has been held to be prospective and it does not have any retrospective effect and therefore, applying the same principle, the petitioner is also entitled to subsidy for the two service connection also.
6.Following the same judgment, the impugned order of the 3rd respondent, dated 20.10.2009 and the confirmation order of the 2nd respondent are set aside and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to make the reimbursement within 4 weeks from today. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
er To,
1.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Industries Commissioner, Director of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3.The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.
4.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.